Grand Rapids Negligence Lawyer for Injury and Liability Claims

A Michigan negligence case turns on four elements, how fault is divided among everyone involved, and a three-year clock that starts on the day of the injury

Most negligence cases in Grand Rapids, Kentwood, Wyoming and the rest of Kent County begin with an ordinary moment that went wrong. A contractor leaves a trench open overnight. A delivery driver backs a truck into a pedestrian. A property manager ignores a broken railing after three complaints. A person is hurt, an adjuster calls within days, and the proof starts to disappear. The ordinary deadline for suing is three years from the injury under MCL 600.5805(2), but the harder part is proving the other side failed to use reasonable care, and then answering the argument that you, or somebody who is not even in the lawsuit, share the blame.

To recover for negligence, an injured person must prove four things: the defendant owed a duty, the defendant breached it, the breach caused the injury, and the injured person suffered damages. The Michigan Supreme Court states those elements in Case v. Consumers Power Co., 463 Mich. 1 (2000). Each element can be won or lost by itself, and Michigan’s fault-sharing statutes can cut the recovery even after all four are proved.

The short answer. To win a negligence claim in Michigan, you prove duty, breach, causation and damages. The usual deadline is three years from the injury under MCL 600.5805(2), and filing the complaint generally stops the clock if the summons and complaint are then served within the time the court rules allow. Fault is shared: under MCL 600.2959 your damages are reduced by your own percentage of fault, and if your fault is greater than the combined fault of everyone else, you recover no noneconomic damages. A defendant can also point to a person who is not in the case, so the other side’s list of who else was at fault matters from the start. Claims against a city, county, school district or the State have separate notice rules that can be as short as 120 days or 6 months. Do this now: photograph the scene, keep the physical evidence, and ask whoever controls any video to keep it. Do not do this: give a recorded statement to the other side’s insurer, or sign a release, before someone has read it with your whole case in mind.

I am Mitchell Bisson, a Grand Rapids civil litigation lawyer. I have litigated for over 15 years, and I prepare negligence cases with trial in mind. That means securing the physical evidence and the video, getting the records and the policies the defendant was supposed to follow, finding the witnesses before their memories settle, and working out early who else could be put on the verdict form. Big-Firm Power. Street-Level Grit.

This page covers the rules that apply to a general negligence claim. My Grand Rapids personal injury lawyer page covers the injury practice as a whole, including the no-fault rules for car crashes, and my Grand Rapids premises liability lawyer page covers claims against property owners. Here I cover the building blocks under all of them. I represent people on both sides of negligence disputes. Nothing here predicts how a case will end, and I do not promise outcomes. I do promise to tell you where you stand.

Michigan negligence claims, deadlines and fault rules

These are the rules in the statutes and the case law. What they mean in your case depends on the facts, the documents and the court.

Three years is the starting point, not the whole answer. Section 5805 sets different periods for different kinds of claims. It sets two years for assault, battery and false imprisonment in subsection (3), two years for malpractice in subsection (8), one year for libel and slander in subsection (11) and three years for a product liability claim in subsection (12). A case that looks like ordinary negligence can turn out to be one of those, so which period governs has to be decided before anyone is given a date.

The clock starts when the wrong was done. Under MCL 600.5827, a claim accrues at the time the wrong was done regardless of the time when damage results. In Trentadue, the Supreme Court held that Michigan has no common-law discovery rule that postpones the start of the period until a person learns of the claim. For an injury from a single event, that means the day of the event, which is why the deadline needs attention at the first meeting.

What the injured person has to prove

Duty. A duty is a legal obligation to use care toward another person. Whether one exists is a question of law for the judge. In Hill v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 492 Mich. 651 (2012), the Supreme Court discussed how courts decide whether a duty exists, looking at the relationship between the parties, the foreseeability of the harm, the burden on the defendant and the nature of the risk. Many cases never turn on duty. It becomes a fight when a contract is in the background, or when the defendant did nothing at all and the claim is that it should have acted.

Breach. Breach asks what a reasonably careful person would have done in the same circumstances, and whether the defendant did less. This is usually a question for the jury, and it is won with specifics: the inspection never done, the warning never given, the policy the defendant wrote and then ignored. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc., 512 Mich. 95 (2023), shows how this plays out. The Court held that the open and obvious nature of a danger is relevant to breach and to the injured person’s comparative fault, not to whether a duty existed.

A violation of a safety statute. When a defendant breaks a penal statute meant to protect people like the injured person, the violation raises a rebuttable presumption of negligence. The Supreme Court applied that rule in Klanseck v. Anderson Sales & Service, Inc., 426 Mich. 78 (1986). A violation of an ordinance or an administrative rule, by contrast, is evidence of negligence that the jury may weigh, but it does not carry the same presumption. The Court of Appeals restated that line in Johnson v. Bobbie’s Party Store, 189 Mich. App. 652, 661 (1991). The exact rule that was broken has to be identified and pleaded accordingly.

When the injury itself is the evidence. Sometimes no one saw what happened, but the kind of accident points to carelessness. Michigan recognizes the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur for those cases, and the Supreme Court described its conditions in Woodard v. Custer, 473 Mich. 1, 7 (2005), a medical malpractice case. It is a way to reach a jury with circumstantial proof, and it has limits: the event must be of a kind that does not ordinarily happen without negligence, the cause must have been in the defendant’s exclusive control, the injured person must not have contributed to the event, and the evidence of the true explanation must be more readily available to the defendant. It should not be the foundation of a case unless the direct evidence has run out.

Causation. The injured person has to show two kinds of causation. Cause in fact means the injury would not have happened but for the defendant’s conduct. Legal, or proximate, cause asks whether the injury was a foreseeable result of that conduct. The Supreme Court explained both in Craig v. Oakwood Hospital, 471 Mich. 67 (2004). If the evidence shows only that the injury might have come from the defendant’s conduct as easily as from something unrelated, a judge may decide the claim fails as a matter of law. Medical records, scene measurements and expert testimony usually decide it.

Damages. The injured person must prove the loss and its amount. Economic damages are the measurable ones: medical bills, lost wages, lost earning capacity, the cost to repair or replace property. Noneconomic damages are pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and similar harm. Both need support. A client who can prove carelessness but not what it cost may recover little, so the proof of loss should be collected while the proof of fault is being built.

How fault is divided under Michigan law

Michigan does not let a plaintiff’s own carelessness end the case by itself. MCL 600.2958 provides that a plaintiff’s contributory fault does not bar recovery, subject to MCL 600.2959. That second section does the work. It requires the court to reduce the plaintiff’s damages by the percentage of fault assigned to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff’s fault is greater than the aggregate fault of the other persons, whether or not they are parties, the court reduces economic damages by the plaintiff’s percentage and noneconomic damages are not awarded. A jury that finds you 30 percent at fault reduces your award by 30 percent.

The verdict form. MCL 600.6304 directs the fact-finder to answer special questions about each person’s fault and the causal relation of that conduct to the injury. Those percentages decide the money, so the fight over who goes on the form is as important as the fight over liability. Planning for that form starts early.

Nonparties at fault. A defendant may ask the jury to assign a share of fault to someone who is not in the case. MCL 600.2957 allows the assessment of fault against nonparties, and MCR 2.112(K) requires the defendant to file a notice identifying the nonparty and the basis for the claim of fault within 91 days after the first responsive pleading, unless the court allows a later notice on a showing that the facts were unknown and could not have been known with reasonable diligence, and the late notice does not unfairly prejudice the plaintiff. If the notice comes, the plaintiff may amend within 91 days after identification and add a claim against that person, and the new claim is not barred unless it would have been barred when the original action was filed. A notice like this has to be watched for, and the decision whether to add the new party has to be made quickly.

Several liability. Under MCL 600.2956, liability in these cases is generally several only, and MCL 600.6304 says the same about the judgment. In the ordinary case each defendant pays its own share, and a defendant who cannot pay leaves a gap. The statute does not abolish an employer’s vicarious liability, which is one reason it matters who employed the person who caused the harm and whether that person was working at the time. MCL 600.6312 makes a defendant jointly and severally liable in limited situations tied to certain criminal convictions.

Impairment. MCL 600.2955a makes it an absolute defense when an injured person’s ability to function was impaired by alcohol or a controlled substance and, as a result of that impairment, the person was 50 percent or more the cause of the event. When the impairment was a cause but less than 50 percent, the damages are reduced by that percentage. These questions turn on a test result, a timeline and expert testimony, and these questions should be examined early in any case where the injured person had been drinking.

Damages and what limits them

Economic and noneconomic loss. A jury is asked to itemize damages, and the line between economic and noneconomic loss matters twice: once for the 50 percent rule above, and once for any statutory limit. The negligence statutes discussed on this page set no dollar limit on noneconomic damages in an ordinary negligence case. Statutory limits do exist in two other areas. MCL 600.1483 caps noneconomic damages in medical malpractice, and MCL 600.2946a does the same for product liability. Both have a higher tier for certain injuries, and the amounts are adjusted over time, so the current figure needs to be checked. For motor vehicle crashes, the no-fault statute has its own threshold, which my personal injury page covers.

Collateral sources. After a verdict for the plaintiff, and before judgment is entered, MCL 600.6303 allows evidence that medical, wage or other economic loss has been paid or is payable by a collateral source, and the court reduces the part of the judgment that represents those amounts. The offset is reduced by the premiums that the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s family paid for the benefit, or that the plaintiff’s employer incurred for the plaintiff, and the statute requires the plaintiff’s lawyer to send notice of the verdict to contractual lien holders. A health insurer or employer plan may also have a right to be repaid from your recovery, so those liens should be identified at the start.

Wrongful death. When a negligent act causes a death, the claim is brought by the personal representative of the estate under the wrongful death act, MCL 600.2922, which limits who may recover and sets its own notice and distribution steps. If you have lost a family member, call me early, because the deadlines depend on facts I need to see.

The deadline, and what starts, stops or extends it

Filing and service. Under MCL 600.5856(a), the period of limitations is tolled when the complaint is filed and a copy of the summons and complaint is served on the defendant within the time set by the Supreme Court rules. The court rule is MCR 2.102(D): a summons expires 91 days after it is issued. Within those 91 days, on a showing of due diligence, the judge may order a second summons to issue for a definite period not exceeding one year from the date the summons is issued. A defendant who is not served by then is deemed dismissed without prejudice under subrule (E), which does not help a plaintiff whose three years have already run. Filing on the last day, with a defendant who cannot be found, can end the case. Filing early and serving promptly protects the claim.

Minors. MCL 600.5851 gives a person who was under 18 when the claim accrued one year after the disability is removed to bring the action, even if the ordinary period has run. The extension helps the injured child, but the notice deadlines for claims against government are separate. MCL 691.1404(3), for example, sets its own 180-day rule for a person under 18. If a child has been hurt, the shortest applicable deadline should be treated as the real one, with the extension only as a backstop. In a pending lawsuit, a settlement for a minor generally needs court approval under MCR 2.420. A settlement before a suit is filed is handled under the Estates and Protected Individuals Code.

Claims that carry their own twist. A product defect brings in a different statute and the product liability cap. A claim against a health care provider brings in the malpractice period and its own rules. A claim against a government employee or agency brings in immunity and notice. For more on the time limit itself, see my post on the personal injury statute of limitations in Michigan.

When the defendant is a city, a county, a school district or the State

Governmental defendants come with protections that private defendants do not have. Under MCL 691.1407(1), a governmental agency is immune from tort liability when it is engaged in a governmental function, unless the Legislature has created an exception. An employee of a governmental agency is immune under subsection (2) if the employee was acting, or reasonably believed he or she was acting, within the scope of his or her authority, the agency was engaged in a governmental function, and the employee’s conduct did not amount to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury. Subsection (8) defines gross negligence as conduct so reckless that it shows a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results. The exceptions are narrow, and Michigan courts read them that way. Nawrocki v. Macomb County Road Commission, 463 Mich. 143, 158 (2000). A claim has to fit one of them, and the complaint has to plead facts that do.

Notice is a condition of the claim. For a defective highway, MCL 691.1404 requires that notice be served on the governmental agency within 120 days of the injury, specifying the exact location and nature of the defect, the injury and the names of the witnesses known at the time. If the injured person was under 18 at the time, the period is 180 days from the injury. If the person was physically or mentally unable to give notice, it is 180 days after that disability ends. For a claim against the State, MCL 600.6431 requires a claim or a written notice of intent to be filed with the clerk of the court of claims, with a 6-month deadline for personal injury and property damage claims. In McCahan v. Brennan, 492 Mich. 730 (2012), the Supreme Court held that when the Legislature conditions a claim against the State on statutory notice, courts may not add an actual-prejudice requirement to excuse a late notice. The Legislature amended section 6431 in 2020, and the current text of that section should be checked in every case. If the injury was on public property or involved a public employee, ask about notice in the first call.

A federal claim for a constitutional violation is a different thing from a negligence claim and follows different rules. See my Michigan civil rights attorney page and my post on suing the police over a wrongful arrest.

Evidence in a negligence case

Most negligence cases are won or lost on evidence that existed on the day of the injury. The people who hold that evidence are often the same people who might be sued.

Preservation. A party that knows litigation is coming has a duty to keep relevant evidence. In Brenner v. Kolk, 226 Mich. App. 149 (1997), the Court of Appeals recognized that duty and held that a court may sanction a party who fails to preserve evidence. A preservation letter should go out as soon as a lawyer is hired. It names the video, the maintenance and inspection logs, the incident reports, the policies, the equipment and the electronic data the other side has to keep.

When evidence is lost. A jury can sometimes be told to infer that missing evidence would have hurt the party who lost it, but not every loss qualifies. The Supreme Court has set conditions for an adverse inference, including a showing about the party’s control of the evidence and the reason for its loss. See Ward v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 472 Mich. 77 (2005).

How I handle a negligence case

1. Fix the deadlines and the defendants. The first job is to decide which limitation period governs, whether a government body is involved, whether a notice is due, and who could be a defendant or a nonparty. The shortest date that could apply goes on the calendar, and you are told what it is.
2. Lock down the evidence. Preservation letters, scene photographs, video, records and witness names come first, with an investigator, and expert testimony where needed, when the cause of the event is disputed.
3. Build the proof of loss. The medical records and bills, the wage records and the liens are gathered, and numbers are put on the claim.
4. Handle the insurer contact. Contact with the adjuster goes through the lawyer. You and I decide together whether to send a demand, and a recorded statement or an early offer should not shape the case before the facts are in.
5. File and serve quickly. Each defendant is served promptly so the summons does not lapse and the defendant’s time to answer starts running. The complaint pleads the facts that support each element and the facts that answer the defenses I expect.
6. Discovery, the nonparty notice and motions. The defendant’s notice of nonparty fault has to be watched for, with a decision on whether to add the new party. The depositions that matter are taken, and motions for summary disposition are answered with evidence, not argument alone.
7. Evaluation, mediation and trial. If the case does not settle on terms that are fair, it can be tried. Preparing for trial can also make a settlement offer more credible.

Ways a negligence case may end without a trial

Whether any of these is available depends on the facts, the evidence and the other side. None is automatic.

Settlement. Many negligence cases that resolve do so by agreement, often after the key witnesses have been deposed and a dispositive motion is pending. The number matters, and so do the release language and the liens, which should be checked before anything is signed. Once a release is signed, the claims it covers are generally over, and a release is very hard to undo.

Summary disposition. A defendant can ask the judge to end a case before trial under MCR 2.116. A motion under subrule (C)(7) raises grounds such as the statute of limitations or governmental immunity. A motion under (C)(8) tests whether the complaint states a claim. A motion under (C)(10) argues there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the Supreme Court explained how a court reviews that kind of motion in Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (1999). A plaintiff who answers with real evidence, such as an affidavit, a deposition or a record, usually survives. A plaintiff who answers with a general denial usually does not.

Case evaluation and other dispute resolution. MCR 2.403 makes case evaluation discretionary, and the parties may stipulate to another form of dispute resolution instead.

What I need from you

Bring photographs or video, witness names, any incident or police report, anything the other side or its insurer has sent you, your medical records and bills, a record of missed work, your health insurance and disability information, and any notice you have already sent to a government body. If you are missing most of it, I can request the rest.

Where your Kent County negligence case will be heard

I represent clients in Grand Rapids, Kentwood, Grandville, Wyoming and across Kent County. Under MCL 600.8301(1), the district court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil actions when the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000. Kent County district courts include the 61st District Court in Grand Rapids, the 59th in Walker and Grandville, the 62A in Wyoming, the 62B in Kentwood and the 63rd for Rockford, Lowell, Cedar Springs, East Grand Rapids and the surrounding townships. Claims for more than that are filed in the Kent County Circuit Court, the 17th Judicial Circuit. A claim against the State goes to the court of claims, and a claim that raises a federal question may belong in federal court.

Why people hire me for a Michigan negligence matter

You work directly with me, the lawyer handling your case. I give you the strengths and weaknesses of the case straight, including what it could cost you and what it could recover. I build the case the facts support, and then we decide together how to proceed.

Fees depend on the type of case, its complexity and whether it is likely to go to trial. I explain my fee arrangement at the consultation, before you decide whether to hire me.

Related Michigan pages

For the injury practice as a whole, including no-fault and crash claims, see my Grand Rapids personal injury lawyer page. For claims against property owners, see my Grand Rapids premises liability lawyer page. For a wider look at my litigation practice, see my Grand Rapids civil litigation attorney page, and for a negligence claim between companies, see my Grand Rapids business litigation attorney page. The time limit is covered in my post on the personal injury statute of limitations in Michigan. If a judgment goes against you, see my Michigan appeals lawyer page, and for short answers, see my Michigan legal FAQs. My practice also includes civil rights and real estate.

For short answers with the statute or court rule behind each one, see my Michigan FAQs on injury deadlines and wrongful death (8 answers) and tort claims and UM/UIM coverage (8 answers).

Law Offices of Mitchell S. Bisson, 2828 Kraft Ave SE, Suite 295, Grand Rapids, MI 49512, serving Kent County and West Michigan. Your Rights, My Fight!

Contact me 24/7 by text on WhatsApp. Dealing with a negligence dispute in Kent County? Call for a free initial consultation: (616) 213-3327 | MBisson@BissonLegal.com

This page provides general information about Michigan law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change and every case turns on its own facts. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.